Thoughts on Objectivism and Rand

“As Ron Paul stated in an interview with Glenn Beck when asked what kinds of taxation he thought was OK, “ANYTHING is better than the income tax.” So just like a smaller government is more just than a larger government, so are user and excise taxes more just than an income tax (within reason). For example, Ron Paul has explained that he supports user fees on visiting the national parks out west because if only 5% of the population visits the parks, why should 95% of the population be forced to pay for the 5%? Sound logic. And a good step in the anarchist direction.”

Your point was that Ron Paul believes taxation is theft. I have just stated that he supports excise taxes. Now you are agreeing with me. There are taxes that Ron Paul does support and he supports them because he believes they will be used to fund the government. It is a strange example of an “anarchist,” this individual who supporting the funding of government programs and believes that states can actually own property in the first place.

" Ron Paul starts the logic train in people’s minds and leaves the writing on the wall unspoken. He leaves it unspoken so that he isn’t considered too extreme and unelectable, which would take away the bully pulpit he has as a politician which enables him to push back the frontiers of ignorance. This is exactly what I would do if I were in his position."

Your perceptions of Ron Paul and the limitation of your cognitive dissonance does not infer that you are following the same intellectual path as Ron Paul. You, like every other video, are reading too much into Ron Paul’s words. The man is a politician, different from others but still a politician. He survives on baby kisses, handshakes and money. If you support what he supports but go further then he does, he is not going to say “Woha, don’t give me your money or your support.” Has he done a lot to publicize liberty? Sure. I would never deny that but honestly, with his movement in shambles, and yes it is in shambles, two failed attempts at the presidency and a lot of supporters scratching their heads wondering what comes next, he is not “pushing back the frontiers of ignorance.”

“Judge Andrew Napolitano does the same thing. He is also an anarchist but on “Freedom Watch” he, like Ron Paul, constantly touted following the non-anarchist Constitution because it is a step in the right direction. A participant at the 2010 Mises University said, “I think you’re an anarchist and you don’t know it yet” and he reponded, “Do you hear me denying anything?”:”

​Yea I was at that Mises U and I was at that talk of his. I think I acting asked a question during his talk at the end. It would be funny to hear it again. Anyways, Napolitano was never the question in this discussion. You are sidetracking the issue. It has been about Ron Paul and what he is trying to achieve.

I went further. He believes that taxation is theft, and therefore less taxation is better than more taxation, and that excise and user fees are less evil than the income tax.

Only if you agree with the further points I just made above.

False. He supports them because “less taxation is better than more taxation, and excise and user fees are less evil than the income tax.”

It’s not strange as long as the funding and ownership are being reduced and headed in the right anarchist direction.

It’s your cognitive dissonance that won’t allow you to see how a politician can be an anarchist and work toward anarchy in steps rather than one fell swoop. I’m really glad that you brought this topic up and got me to debate with you, because it caused me to look into the subject a little more. In doing so, I found this clip of Ron Paul being interviewed on Cavuto. At 7:55 Ron Paul says: "They’re talking about repealing a mandate or repealing Obamacare. I want to repeal the whole government!"

http://www.newshounds.us/2011/01/06/ron_paul_wants_to_repeal_the_whole_government_no_biggie_to_neil_cavuto.php

I’d like to see you spin that quote. Even the statists in the link agree that I’m not reading too much into it, saying “That was crazy enough but Neil Cavuto didn’t pause for a moment, but just moved on. OK, Congressman. Repeal the government you ask? How about you and your son resigning effective immediately, without taking any government benefits (Social Security, Medicare, pensions), don’t have any relatives working for public schools, police, and fire. Also, don’t drive on any roads because they’re public.”

I’ve got to share this with Conza and Graham.

I don’t go further than repealing the whole government.

Cognitive dissonance.

Nope, I was just demonstrating how Napolitano, Paul, and I use the Constitution in our quest to not only repeal Obamacare, but repeal the whole government. Thank you and goodnight.

“I went further. He believes that taxation is theft, and therefore less taxation is better than more taxation, and that excise and user fees are less evil than the income tax.”

Taxation is theft - Abstract

Excise tax is necessary for government funding but is less evil - Concrete.

Do you see the cognitive dissonance here?

"False. He supports them because “less taxation is better than more taxation, and excise and user fees are less evil than the income tax.”

Saying something is less evil then something else does not bar you for supporting the less evil thing. So far you have just said that “Hey at least he does not support income taxation.” Yea I get that. He still supports excise and user taxation. Period.

“It’s not strange as long as the funding and ownership are being reduced and headed in the right anarchist direction.”

Legitimizing the concept that government can own property is moving toward the belief that government is coercive, arbitrary and invasive therefore we ought to get rid of it?

"They’re talking about repealing a mandate or repealing Obamacare. I want to repeal the whole government!"

Repeal does not automatically infer removal. It can infer change from the current status quo. That is what Ron Paul has been trying to do. Change​ the philosophy of individuals to no longer accept the notion that government should take care of us from cradle to grave. He is not saying let’s get rid of government and have a poly-centric legal order, or let’s get rid of the Constitution. He is talking about how Congress SHOULD​ be taking back its powers delegated in the Constitution. How executive mandates should stop and be eliminated by congressional legislation. If he believes in the elimination of government, then why is he still advocating for the balance of power between the three houses? Why not say “just get rid of government”? He is not going to be elected president. He is not running again for congress. Why not say what is really on his mind if such a thing is on his mind?

“Cognitive dissonance.”

​Talking about (publicizing) liberty and making advancements are two different things. Just because you talk about something does not infer that people automatically agree with your cause.

“Nope, I was just demonstrating how Napolitano, Paul, and I use the Constitution in our quest to not only repeal Obamacare, but repeal the whole government. Thank you and goodnight.”

Napolitano uses the Constitution to show that government does not follow its own rules. Ron Paul uses it as an example of HOW government should function. Napolitano shows the reality of how it is a document that is failing, Ron Paul believes that the Constitution is something to be aspired for.

@John_Donohue you say “proper government had already failed in the secenario of that book”… many here would argue ‘proper government’, if such a thing exists, has already failed.

Cyber Pirates are even more robin hoodish because we are not only deisseminating wealth but knowledge itself.

@Anarcho-libertarian

“We always give the public their hero’s, we give the hero’s to every faction and than people once they hear this person say all the right things, we give releases to them because he or she speaks for me that’s how we rationalize it and we sit back and re-guide it again, we say go here go do that and they do it, we give our power to the authorized hero’s”

-Albert Pike

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRsxBc4CxYU

I don’t because there isn’t. It’s taking a general principle (taxation is theft) and then using that principle to guide you when choosing concrete alternatives (less theft in the form of excise/user fees is better than more theft in the form of the income tax, with no taxation of course being the ultimate goal).

Not period. He supports excise and user taxes over the income tax, and he supports no taxes at all over excise and user taxes (because repealing the whole government would require no taxation). I do as well.

Absolutely. I, as fellow AnCap Tom Woods explained in his podcast with Lew Rockwell, use the Constitution (a document which legitimizes government) all the time as a bludgeon against the state. The books that Tom writes like Nullification and Who Killed the Constitution probably have you scratching your head (“How could an anarchist support state’s rights?!?!”) To me it makes perfect sense, as it does with Ron Paul.

Bill Clinton couldn’t have spun it better:

Taking your reading into it, that means that when Ron Paul said he wants to repeal ObamaCare, what he meant was he just wants to “reform” the ObamaCare status quo and not remove it. That is obviously wrong and I hope you don’t make me have to start researching quotes of Ron Paul saying that he wants to completely repeal, remove, dismantle, abolish, annihilate, destroy, torpedo, abort, and extinguish ObamaCare.

Even if he did say that, “getting rid of” does not automatically infer removal. It can infer change from the current status quo. Lol.

Is Tom Woods running for office? Why does he write these Constitution books? But actually, he does have the brass balls to say what is really on his mind occasionally (“I want to repeal the whole government!”).

Lol! He has pushed back the frontiers of ignorance with so many people, including myself and most of my friends and family (some of whom are now AnCaps thanks to the Ron Paul Gateway Drug), that it isn’t even debatable. Yeah, people don’t automatically agree, but I never said they did.

Better watch that first Graham video again (or for the first time). Ron Paul in End the Fed:

“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.”

And what does Ron Paul want to limit government power to? Nothing, because “I don’t like the use of force, I like Voluntarism. That’s what a free society is supposed to be all about.”:

Let me guess. You’re going to say “He didn’t say Voluntarism. He said volunteerism! He wants everyone to be a volunteer for charitable causes in their community!”

I don’t understand that big run-on sentance. I will be campaigning for Ron Paul to the end of my days because he is in my view the best Gateway Drug out of the false left vs right paradigm and toward anarcho-capitalism. His winning or losing of a government office is irrelevant to his intellectual revolution that he ignited. He introduces people to libertarianism, and lets Rothbard, Spooner, Woods and Rockwell do the rest.

As far as the video of him wussing out on the 9/11 issue while on the debate stage, that is unfortunate. I never said he was a perfect man. Still support him though. And just because he wussed out on national TV on that issue doesn’t mean that he is part of some NWO/Mason/Jewish conspiracy.